-
Strengthening Consistency Results in Modal Logic
Authors:
Samuel Allen Alexander,
Arthur Paul Pedersen
Abstract:
A fundamental question asked in modal logic is whether a given theory is consistent. But consistent with what? A typical way to address this question identifies a choice of background knowledge axioms (say, S4, D, etc.) and then shows the assumptions codified by the theory in question to be consistent with those background axioms. But determining the specific choice and division of background axio…
▽ More
A fundamental question asked in modal logic is whether a given theory is consistent. But consistent with what? A typical way to address this question identifies a choice of background knowledge axioms (say, S4, D, etc.) and then shows the assumptions codified by the theory in question to be consistent with those background axioms. But determining the specific choice and division of background axioms is, at least sometimes, little more than tradition. This paper introduces **generic theories** for propositional modal logic to address consistency results in a more robust way. As building blocks for background knowledge, generic theories provide a standard for categorical determinations of consistency. We argue that the results and methods of this paper help to elucidate problems in epistemology and enjoy sufficient scope and power to have purchase on problems bearing on modalities in judgement, inference, and decision making.
△ Less
Submitted 11 July, 2023;
originally announced July 2023.
-
Representation and Invariance in Reinforcement Learning
Authors:
Samuel Alexander,
Arthur Paul Pedersen
Abstract:
Researchers have formalized reinforcement learning (RL) in different ways. If an agent in one RL framework is to run within another RL framework's environments, the agent must first be converted, or mapped, into that other framework. Whether or not this is possible depends on not only the RL frameworks in question and but also how intelligence itself is measured. In this paper, we lay foundations…
▽ More
Researchers have formalized reinforcement learning (RL) in different ways. If an agent in one RL framework is to run within another RL framework's environments, the agent must first be converted, or mapped, into that other framework. Whether or not this is possible depends on not only the RL frameworks in question and but also how intelligence itself is measured. In this paper, we lay foundations for studying relative-intelligence-preserving mappability between RL frameworks. We define two types of mappings, called weak and strong translations, between RL frameworks and prove that existence of these mappings enables two types of intelligence comparison according to the mappings preserving relative intelligence. We investigate the existence or lack thereof of these mappings between: (i) RL frameworks where agents go first and RL frameworks where environments go first; and (ii) twelve different RL frameworks differing in terms of whether or not agents or environments are required to be deterministic. In the former case, we consider various natural mappings between agent-first and environment-first RL and vice versa; we show some positive results (some such mappings are strong or weak translations) and some negative results (some such mappings are not). In the latter case, we completely characterize which of the twelve RL-framework pairs admit weak translations, under the assumption of integer-valued rewards and some additional mild assumptions.
△ Less
Submitted 12 February, 2023; v1 submitted 14 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
-
Adversarial Attacks in Cooperative AI
Authors:
Ted Fujimoto,
Arthur Paul Pedersen
Abstract:
Single-agent reinforcement learning algorithms in a multi-agent environment are inadequate for fostering cooperation. If intelligent agents are to interact and work together to solve complex problems, methods that counter non-cooperative behavior are needed to facilitate the training of multiple agents. This is the goal of cooperative AI. Recent research in adversarial machine learning, however, s…
▽ More
Single-agent reinforcement learning algorithms in a multi-agent environment are inadequate for fostering cooperation. If intelligent agents are to interact and work together to solve complex problems, methods that counter non-cooperative behavior are needed to facilitate the training of multiple agents. This is the goal of cooperative AI. Recent research in adversarial machine learning, however, shows that models (e.g., image classifiers) can be easily deceived into making inferior decisions. Meanwhile, an important line of research in cooperative AI has focused on introducing algorithmic improvements that accelerate learning of optimally cooperative behavior. We argue that prominent methods of cooperative AI are exposed to weaknesses analogous to those studied in prior machine learning research. More specifically, we show that three algorithms inspired by human-like social intelligence are, in principle, vulnerable to attacks that exploit weaknesses introduced by cooperative AI's algorithmic improvements and report experimental findings that illustrate how these vulnerabilities can be exploited in practice.
△ Less
Submitted 7 March, 2022; v1 submitted 29 November, 2021;
originally announced November 2021.
-
When is an Example a Counterexample?
Authors:
Eric Pacuit,
Arthur Paul Pedersen,
Jan-Willem Romeijn
Abstract:
In this extended abstract, we carefully examine a purported counterexample to a postulate of iterated belief revision. We suggest that the example is better seen as a failure to apply the theory of belief revision in sufficient detail. The main contribution is conceptual aiming at the literature on the philosophical foundations of the AGM theory of belief revision [1]. Our discussion is centered a…
▽ More
In this extended abstract, we carefully examine a purported counterexample to a postulate of iterated belief revision. We suggest that the example is better seen as a failure to apply the theory of belief revision in sufficient detail. The main contribution is conceptual aiming at the literature on the philosophical foundations of the AGM theory of belief revision [1]. Our discussion is centered around the observation that it is often unclear whether a specific example is a "genuine" counterexample to an abstract theory or a misapplication of that theory to a concrete case.
△ Less
Submitted 23 October, 2013;
originally announced October 2013.
